Skip to main content

About your Search

20130216
20130224
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
first step toward getting federal spending under control in a way that would ultimately help the economy. >> let we get back to my first, if sequestration isn't, maybe we'd get as many as we might have if we spent money and if we're at the status quo. >> they're talking as far as jobs are concerned and the larger economy. if the government spends less in the larger economy, then it would cost some jobs overall. as far as the-- >> meaning slow growth, rather than cost jobs. >> exactly. as far as the military is concerned, there's a lot of controversy about this. you have a lot of republicans who are against sequestration, solely on the grounds of cuts to the federal government, excuse me to the defense department and you've heard today, leon panetta talking about hundreds of thousands of workers who will be furloughed and talked about damage to combat readiness and say there's an omb report, management and budget which says that they believe that the secretary of defense, and the president, do have the discretion to move money around so that combat readiness would not be affected by these
, ignores an economy that is struggling, remember, it contracted in the last quarter, and it's projected to contract some more in the first and second quarter, ignored 23 million people who are out of work, ignored the fact that unemployment rates are going to go up. ignored 86 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. i'm embarrassed about that because the people in office that could do something about it are not doing anything about it. >> herman cain. >> and don't attack rush limbaugh-- >> herman cain you're a successful businessman and you've just made a bottom line argument that i love. if you look back at the last quarter of last year, what do you see? the defense department pulled spending and what happens? the gdp, the economy slows down. now we're approaching a sequester and pull money helter skelter from every skek tore, what do you think it's going to do to our economy. >> juan, you're wrong. >> it's going to hurt america. >> juan, you're dead wrong. those weren't the factors that caused the economy to contract. >> that's what the economy said, herman. >> those are the wrong e
will collapse. this is $85 billion in net of three and half trillion dollar budget in the $16 trillion economy. i would be hard-pressed to explain how cutting 85 billion -- think of it as taking 85 billion out of your allowance of $3,800. eighty-five bucks out. as not going to end things. lou: percentages are, perhaps, the easiest way to comprehend this. 2 percent, you know, is not that significant. on the other hand, it is easy to recall that rat poison is mostly of meal in most cases with 2% poison in it. 2% can be deadly and destructive in some cases determined. go ahead. >> no one should argue this is a good idea. this is, as i was quoted, a bad idea whose time has come because the worse idea is to not deal with the spending. that is the problem. and at least they are agreeing that there not going to do nothing. so it is either do real spending cuts that are real choices and really passed the senate, which we have not seen passed the house. with this. lou: at some point, and i know that you are doing your level best to try to bring rationality into the nation. >> not my fault. lou: i under
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)